New media, new knowledge?

Not much scholarly literature has been written on the role of social media, or online media more generally, in scientific communication. Despite the level of importance that this type of communication has reached, scientists’ and science journalists’ use of it still lacks attention from sociologists and science and technology studies scholars.⁶⁴ Some studies have been devoted to the use of specific online platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, or blogs.⁶⁵ In these few cases, most of the commentators acknowledge the potential of these new media to change scientific communication and to allow for a more open and ‘real’ dialogue between scientists and the general public. Yet, at the same time, most of them also point out the difficulties. They highlight the often ‘dubious quality’ of much of the information on the Internet and the low standard of peer-to-peer and professional-to-public discussions in forums like blogs, which easily ‘degenerate into name-calling or focus on trivial aspects of the issue.’⁶⁶ In this sense, the Orce tooth debate 2.0, framed in the

62 Toro-Moyano et al. 2013b, 1.

63 Toro-Moyano et al. 2013b, 2.

64 Trench 2012, 273. Some accounts include: Allan 2011; Bubela et al. 2010; or Cody 2010.

65 For Twitter: Veltri 2012, or Chew/Eysenbach 2010. For blogs: Trench 2012, or Colson 2011. For YouTube:

Wellbourne/Grant 2015.

66 Bubela et al. 2010, 516-517 and Trench 2012, 286-287.

larger Orce controversy, reveals interesting aspects of how the advent of the ‘digital revolution’ has influenced the way that scientific discoveries and controversies are presented and discussed in public. The Orce Boy article’s removal highlighted the potential of new media while also helping us understand more general trends that, despite changes in the characteristics of the media, are still intrinsically involved in the way that science works and scientific knowledge is produced and circulated.

As argued earlier, the way that the tooth was presented shows how, more than 30 years later, the need to have a public ‘performance’ in order to present new discoveries has not changed.

Scientists announced the discovery to the media before its scientific publication in a ceremony with politicians and media representatives. The ‘oldest European’ label appeared again as a perfect way to ‘sell’ the Orce discovery. The intentions of the discoverers were very similar to those of Gibert, Agustí, and Moyà-Solà back in the 1980s, despite the fact that the social, political, and scientific situation in 2013 did not cultivate same level of media attention that the original Orce Man discovery received. As we saw earlier, the economic situation in Spain was not ideal for spending money on ‘useless’ science. Atapuerca’s spectacular discovery in the 1990s and its broad media following also downplayed the significance of the new Orce findings. After the Atapuerca discovery of almost complete craniums and the naming of a new species, a single tooth, even from the earliest European, was an attraction for the Andalusian press but not really an issue for the national press, beyond a single half-page report.⁶⁷

Yet, in the 21^st-century case, while traditional media attraction was still necessary for getting public and political support, it was much less crucial in the way that the circulation of scientific knowledge and information among specialists and laypeople worked. Online forums, blogs, and comments on news pieces allow for a new form of knowledge communication that has apparently become faster, more far-reaching, and more dynamic. Immediately after the publication of the news piece in Materia on the ‘temporary removal’ of the Journal of Human Evolution paper, the piece’s comments section displayed many responses to the content of the article. Some of the comments were linked to other pieces in blogs and newspapers that also echoed the news and thus amplified the distribution of these pieces. Likewise, reports on the discovery and the removal were disseminated on Twitter. Some of these accounts, like the Materia piece, were reproduced several times on blogs and other sites. Some scientists and journalists involved in the affair participated in the diffusion and made comments. One example is Francesc Ribot, a palaeontologist who was a former collaborator of Gibert’s. Ribot made comments on the Materia piece, the El Niño de Orce blog, and Facebook pages, and criticised the authors of the article for not including a reference to

67 For Atapuerca see Hochadel 2013b.

Gibert and the previous tooth from Barranco León, including technical details about Gibert’s findings in his critiques. This highlights how online media, such as blogging, can be especially influential in controversial and public issues, providing fertile ground for lively discussions.⁶⁸ In addition, this online discussion could reach the ‘real’ world and influence the way that researchers present discoveries, as happened in the presentation of the new tooth to the people of Orce.

Like comments, Twitter and (especially) blogs allowed the parties involved to express themselves directly to their ‘publics’. Isidro Toro was very active on Twitter where he shared news about the discovery. José María Bermúdez de Castro also commented on the discovery on his blog, and Mercè Piqueras, who sent one of the letters to the Journal of Human Evolution’s editor, echoed the removal twice on her blog.⁶⁹ Yet, most of the scientists involved did not directly use their own blogs but instead used comments sections to discuss the removal, and a lively debate about Orce took place particularly on two or three forums. Therefore, in the 2013 Orce case, online digital media became the space where scientific knowledge was presented by scientists themselves, as well as being a forum for discussion between them. As we have seen, for at least five days between the press conference and the publication of the online article, the only source of information on the new Orce tooth discovery was the media. Both traditional and online media echoed the scientists’

statements from the presentation and featured new ones. Blogs, Twitter, and Facebook accounts spread this information, which even reached some English-speaking and international newspapers and online media.⁷⁰ At the same time, these new digital media, like the traditional media before, were the main sources of information for those interested in the issue. Since the presentation of the discovery to the press took place before the scientific paper was available, scientists’ statements in the press conference and subsequent comments, blogs entries, and online newspapers and magazines were the only source of scientific information on the tooth, at least until five days later when the article was accessible online in press. Then, the article was only accessible to those who paid 19.95 dollars or were affiliated with an institution with access to the Journal of Human Evolution. So, the general public again had difficulties in accessing published scientific information on the tooth. During this period without access to the article, an English-language blog called The Olduvai Gorge reviewed it using some paragraphs from the original and even published an entire image from it.⁷¹ This image was also reproduced on the blog administrator’s Twitter account and it appeared on the El Niño de Orce blog, thus reaching interested members of the Spanish general

68 Trench 2012, 276.

69 Bermúdez de Castro 2013; Piqueras 2013a, and Piqueras 2013b. See analysis and examples of scientists’ use of blogs in Colson 2011.

70 Newspapers: Fotheringham, The Independent 2013, and Marot, der Standard 2013. Blogs entries: Theolduvaigorge 2013; Maju 2013; Jones 2013. See also: El Niño de Orce 2013l.

71 Theolduvaigorge 2013.

public that did not have access to the actual scientific article.⁷² This shows how information from scientific articles can easily flow to blogs and other online media that become direct sources of information for the interested general public.

Fig. 5.6: Tweet with image reproduced from the original scientific article. Source: Niño de Orce 2013a.

Somehow, this situation was similar to the three years that passed from the 1984 El País front cover to Agustí and Moyà-Solà’s article in 1987, when information about the famous Orce Man controversy was mainly disseminated in newspapers. As discussed in chapter two, this gives the media a crucial role in the way that scientific knowledge circulates both among the general public and among the scientists involved, precisely during times when the issue at hand receives the most attention. It seems then that as well as the fact that science’s need to have a public presence is similar to the 1980s case, with new media it is much easier and faster for the parties involved to ‘go public’ and ‘publish’ an opinion in a blog or a comment on a news piece. This confirms the often claimed democratic nature of new online technologies and platforms. In addition, this situation also allows for better analysis of the public prevalence of opinions and the dominance of one opinion over another. These new technologies allowed voices like Ribot’s to be heard in the debate, voices that might have been silenced or barely noticed in more traditional media. The Internet and social media allow the analyst to ‘listen’ to the voices of these different ‘publics’. What was very difficult in the 1980s becomes almost one of the most interesting sources in the 21^st century.

Later, an online prehistory forum was the first to announce the temporary removal of the article, a scoop which that same day was distributed online, and later reached magazines and newspapers that joined the discussion. Here it is crucial to highlight the relationship between the online public discussion about the article’s removal and the private discussion taking place between the editor of the Journal of Human Evolution and the scientists involved on both sides. This

72 El Niño de Orce 2013a.

discussion was mainly about what role Josep Gibert and his team’s research in the Orce area played and how they should be acknowledged or presented in the publications of the new team. The direct involvement in this private discussion of the scientist, scientific journalist, and blog writer Mercè Piqueras, together with the detailed entries published on the blog El Niño de Orce and the article authors’ comments to the press, allowed this private discussion to be opened to the public.⁷³ In a way, we cannot consider two separate discussions, one public and one private, but one single discussion with a public and a private side.

Finally, as Jim Secord argued in his book Victorian Sensation, the introduction of new press technologies, combined with an increase in literacy and the development of railway communications, allowed publishers and authors, like Robert Chambers author of the Vestiges, analyzed in Secord's work, to produce a new science product: the first popular science books, which changed scientific communication.⁷⁴ Moreover, these new technologies also changed periodicals and newspapers increasing circulation of knowledge and audiences. This, of course, affected the generation of scientists that grew up with these changes. For the likes of Huxley or Tyndall, less specialised publications became central in their professional agendas.⁷⁵ Similarly, early 21^st-century communication media are changing the way that scientific knowledge circulates and are therefore also modifying scientists’ actions. The brief dispute between the authors of the tooth article and the defenders of Gibert’s legacy shows how new media facilitated faster communication and the more direct involvement of scientists, who could express their opinion on the dispute. This also led to a wider distribution of these comments and of the information on the case more generally, allowing for all interested audiences to be addressed and not only the readers of certain newspapers and journals. The temporary removal controversy also shows how scientific discussion among peers and with the public took place online. This discussion used direct, detailed, and high-quality information on the issue from both sides of the controversy. Long articles in Materia and posts on El Niño de Orce are clear examples of this informed discussion. This allowed the interested general public to access valuable information from both sides of the controversy, which in turn allowed for informed positioning on one side or on the other. Blogs, but also Twitter and comments sections, could be the new ‘science products’ that nowadays scientists will use more and more often in their scientific debates and therefore in their scientific practice. Beyond the distribution of knowledge, these new products could also be used to legitimate a certain position. Previous online presence (for instance, managing a blog with regular and influential readers or being active on Twitter and having

73 See: El Niño de Orce 2013h; El Niño de Orce 2013m; Piqueras 2013a and Piqueras 2013b. An especially intense debate in: El Niño de Orce 2013c; Ansede, Materia 2013b; or Facebook Cuarto Milenio 2013.

74 Secord 2002, 2 and 167.

75 Lightman 2011.

sufficient followers) means having power in a possible forthcoming controversy since your accounts or comments will have wider distribution and visibility. Like popular science books, blogs and Twitter could be increasingly ‘enlarged battlefields’ where scientific issues could be discussed and controversial ideas put forward without the usual controls of scientific publications.⁷⁶

To sum up, both in the 1980s and in the early 21^st century, scientific positions and critiques regarding scientific issues had to be public first in order to be relevant and useful. The strategies and aims of the public dissemination of a new discovery apparently have not changed much. Scientists made similar claims in similar ways. Yet, the circulation of the information is now different. The presentation of the second discovery was not as widely followed as the first and the temporary removal dispute was brief, but this analysis could reveal new trends in scientific communication.

Blog writers and even journalists that wrote relevant pieces on the issue which were commented on and shared were much more informed and more implicated in the story itself. The immediate consequence of this is that what years ago was a private opinion that could potentially have its own public side via newspapers, can now be more immediately public through, for instance, blog posts.

Somehow, according to this dispute analysis, online communication reduces the distance between the space of the generation of scientific knowledge, the space of discussion, and the space of circulation and diffusion. Apparently, the gap between the so-called scientific community and what we may call an interested general public becomes smaller. Back in the 1980s, newspapers could act as channels for political and public support and fund raising, as a stage for scientific debate among specialists, and as a place for scientific validation together with scientific forums. Now, online communication (ranging from online newspapers, Twitter, and Facebook, to blogs and comment sections) is, increasingly, inside scientific debate itself. The publication of scientific articles will then be just another step, and not necessarily the first, in scientific communication. The interested general public could then be involved in this communication more than ever before. Presumably, scientists, like Western society in the early 21^st century as a whole, will develop, discuss, circulate, and validate their practice and knowledge more and more online, and, therefore, in an increasingly public manner. This could bring with it several problems about the validity and final acceptance of scientific knowledge and the possible ‘danger’ of less ‘rigorous’ knowledge. Yet, at the same time, if managed well, the online presence of scientific communication could lead us towards more open and democratic scientific practices negotiated among and between a wider range of ‘publics’. A new scientific culture that could more deeply take into account all these different publics in further decision making.

76 See of these ideas applied to science books in Hochadel 2013c.

6. Conclusions

This thesis has tried to achieve several objectives. Firstly, to provide an account of the Orce Man controversy that is as complete as possible. From its discovery to the El País front cover, from the 1995 conference to the 2013 ‘Orce Boy’, this work has tried to put together the whole story without taking sides and without taking for granted any supposed truth. Secondly, through the Orce Man example, this thesis has also tried to make a contribution to understanding particular periods in the recent history of Spain and the role played by science in them. Thirdly, it has tried to add to the understanding of scientific controversies and especially public scientific controversies. The strategies and ‘tools’ used by the actors involved and the paths that knowledge takes in these cases have been under analysis throughout. Finally, through detailed analysis, the Orce Man story has emerged as much more complex than in previous accounts, thus showing how it could be useful for better understanding palaeoanthropological scientific practice and its relationship with the media and with politics.

With regard to this, I will begin these concluding remarks with a brief summary of a very similar story to that of the Orce Man. Instead of a possible ‘First European’, this is the story of a possible ‘First American’, found at the Pedra Furada site in Brazil. In fact, the original idea for this thesis was to compare two similar cases: Orce and Pedra Furada. As it turned out, the Orce Man case provided more than enough material for one thesis. This fact, added to the difficulties in getting to Brazil and accessing Pedra Furada primary sources, led me to devote this thesis entirely to the Orce Man. Nevertheless, I would like to briefly mention some features of the Pedra Furada case in order to place my own case study within a larger context. The analysis of this case is preliminary and it is much more complex than what will be presented here. Nevertheless, the Pedra Furada story will show numerous features that will either have great similarities with the Spanish case or will highlight its distinctive characteristics. By doing this I intend to expand the intellectual reach of this thesis as it will reveal how the way that it has dealt with the Orce case could be applied to several other instances in the history of palaeoanthropology, archaeology, or even other sciences.

Hence, this thesis aims to go beyond the history of the Orce Man controversy and tries to provide a series of issues for analysing scientific discoveries and controversies. The features showed in the Pedra Furada story will reappear in the second part of the conclusions where I will briefly tackle five general issues that have been central to this thesis and that I think summarise most of the points raised in it: geographies of science, discourses of science, success and failure in science, politics of science, and publics of science.